A Belated Defense of 300
In the excitement leading up to the expected cinematic mega-hit, The Watchmen, I'd like to pick at an issue that's been bothering me for a long time regarding a previous movie by Watchmen Director Zack Snyder.
The movie in question is 300. Great film. Enjoyed it a lot. The movie itself is not the issue.
The issue I have is with a common critique of the movie I've read in a great number of reviews, and was repeated most recently in the Corner's "5th Best Conservative Movie" writeup of the film (emphasis blow mine):
Beneath a layer of egregious non-history—including goblin-like creatures that belong in a fantasy epic—is a stylized story about the ancient battle of Thermopylae and the Spartan defense of the West’s fledgling institutions.
I've read lots of references to this "fantasy" aspect registered as a complaint about the realism of the movie.
It's always bothered me because the movie's exaggerated reality (e.g. the 10 foot tall Persian emperor, the monstrously deformed Ephors, the overly theatrical battlefield action scenes, etc.) is an intentional artistic device which has its purpose revealed in the film's final moments. To me this device reveals an added layer of skill and artistry, rather than a flaw.
The movie is predominated by scenes narrated by one of the Spartan "300" - Dilios, played by David Wenham. For most of the movie you don't understand why this particular character is doing the narration. But later you find out why, and it makes perfect sense. It's also central to understanding why those "fantasy" elements are in there.
In the movie, Dilios is the only Spartan who leaves Thermopylae before all the others are overwhelmed and killed by the Persian army. His reason for leaving rather than dying with his comrades is revealed just prior to the climax of the movie. King Leonidas tells Dilios that he must be the one to go report what happened to the Spartans - he and no one else - because Dilios has the greatest gift with words. He's sent to turn the sacrifice at Thermopylae into a rallying cry that will spur a reluctant Sparta into going fully to war against the Persians.
And that's why Dilios is the narrator. The scenes he's narrating are exagerrated to reflect the visual images his words are conjuring up in the minds of his Spartan audience in his attempt to stir their hearts. Dilios uses the sacrifice at Thermopylae to rally his countrymen to war by weaving the sacrifice of the Spartan king into a heroic epic. Through Dilios telling, the futile Spartan resistance becomes a mythic tale full of larger than life Persian monsters - and the Spartan heroes who are more than their equal.
There are clues about this throughout the movie, which become apparent after realizing this narration device. For example, the scenes which are NOT narrated by Delios do not contain any of the “fantasy” elements. Another example: when King Leonidas rejects the military assistance of the deformed Ephialtes, it’s made very clear the reason is because his deformation would be useless in a tight phalanx formation... but in the battle scenes the Spartans continually discard this formation and battle man to man, more like warriors from the Illiad than disciplined Spartan soldiers. The “monsters” in the Persian army, up to and including the emperor himself, conform neatly to the stereotypes a Greek audience might have had toward the mysterious eastern kingdoms from which Persia drew its army. And, of course, in the final scene of the movie as Delios is shown finishing his story as a call to arms to the assembled Spartan army, they face a very mortal looking Persian army.
If you’ve ever seen this movie before and not noticed this “Delios’ tale versus reality” theme, check it out again and you’ll see what I’m talking about. It's a brilliant cinematic / storytelling device, deployed artfully by Zack Snyder. Agree with it or not, it fully explains the "fantasy element" inclusion in this erstwhile historic epic.
The movie in question is 300. Great film. Enjoyed it a lot. The movie itself is not the issue.
The issue I have is with a common critique of the movie I've read in a great number of reviews, and was repeated most recently in the Corner's "5th Best Conservative Movie" writeup of the film (emphasis blow mine):
Beneath a layer of egregious non-history—including goblin-like creatures that belong in a fantasy epic—is a stylized story about the ancient battle of Thermopylae and the Spartan defense of the West’s fledgling institutions.
I've read lots of references to this "fantasy" aspect registered as a complaint about the realism of the movie.
It's always bothered me because the movie's exaggerated reality (e.g. the 10 foot tall Persian emperor, the monstrously deformed Ephors, the overly theatrical battlefield action scenes, etc.) is an intentional artistic device which has its purpose revealed in the film's final moments. To me this device reveals an added layer of skill and artistry, rather than a flaw.The movie is predominated by scenes narrated by one of the Spartan "300" - Dilios, played by David Wenham. For most of the movie you don't understand why this particular character is doing the narration. But later you find out why, and it makes perfect sense. It's also central to understanding why those "fantasy" elements are in there.
In the movie, Dilios is the only Spartan who leaves Thermopylae before all the others are overwhelmed and killed by the Persian army. His reason for leaving rather than dying with his comrades is revealed just prior to the climax of the movie. King Leonidas tells Dilios that he must be the one to go report what happened to the Spartans - he and no one else - because Dilios has the greatest gift with words. He's sent to turn the sacrifice at Thermopylae into a rallying cry that will spur a reluctant Sparta into going fully to war against the Persians.
And that's why Dilios is the narrator. The scenes he's narrating are exagerrated to reflect the visual images his words are conjuring up in the minds of his Spartan audience in his attempt to stir their hearts. Dilios uses the sacrifice at Thermopylae to rally his countrymen to war by weaving the sacrifice of the Spartan king into a heroic epic. Through Dilios telling, the futile Spartan resistance becomes a mythic tale full of larger than life Persian monsters - and the Spartan heroes who are more than their equal.
There are clues about this throughout the movie, which become apparent after realizing this narration device. For example, the scenes which are NOT narrated by Delios do not contain any of the “fantasy” elements. Another example: when King Leonidas rejects the military assistance of the deformed Ephialtes, it’s made very clear the reason is because his deformation would be useless in a tight phalanx formation... but in the battle scenes the Spartans continually discard this formation and battle man to man, more like warriors from the Illiad than disciplined Spartan soldiers. The “monsters” in the Persian army, up to and including the emperor himself, conform neatly to the stereotypes a Greek audience might have had toward the mysterious eastern kingdoms from which Persia drew its army. And, of course, in the final scene of the movie as Delios is shown finishing his story as a call to arms to the assembled Spartan army, they face a very mortal looking Persian army.
If you’ve ever seen this movie before and not noticed this “Delios’ tale versus reality” theme, check it out again and you’ll see what I’m talking about. It's a brilliant cinematic / storytelling device, deployed artfully by Zack Snyder. Agree with it or not, it fully explains the "fantasy element" inclusion in this erstwhile historic epic.
Posted by Doug Williams on
Friday February 27, 2009 at 2:41pm
